Opposing Roe v. Wade is one thing, but Griswold, which -- as Couric correctly pointed out, is the key precedent for Roe -- is something altogether different, and much riskier politically.

What percentage of registered voters in the US have any idea what the Griswold decision was?

Governor Palin was responding to a question about the federal constitution, but it's worth noting that the Alaskan constitution actually does guarantee a right to privacy: The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. Art. I Sec. 22. The clause was added in 1972, just before Roe v. Wade was handed down.

who opposed the Bill of Rights were concerned that if a list of rights were enumerated, they would be assumed to be the only rights of the the people.

Turns out they were right.

I think Palin's statement regarding a right to privacy, and her failure to cite Dred Scott as a decision she disagrees with shows she is a fundie poseur.

the moves that assholes after power and the limitation of liberty would make down the road if they didn't enumerate all of the rights they had in mind and gave us those handy dandy 9th and 10th amendments!

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Forbid that the Republican ticket lack homogeneity of opinion.

Every one knows that Gore religiously internalized Clinton's opinions and that, even as we speak, Biden is being reeducated to do nothing except ape obama.

Right. Very few kwow Griswald or even worse what Roe really allows. Many people do not understand before Griswald(1965) married women in many states could not get contraception without the permission of their husbands. Most single women had NO legal access to contraception. It was 'Griswald vs. the State of Connecticut' that finally gave women the right to privacy. Much of the is discussion recently has been driven by the anti choice forces claiming a woman can get an abortion at any stage in pregnancy for any reason and that is not true. When people understand the trimester system under Roe ruling the majority suuport it, even the very rare support late term for health reasons.

The argument of getting rid of Roe and leaving rulings up to the state should be opposed more vehemently because if that happened then some women would be denied their rights to privacy. If Roe goes many states laws would revert back to their pre-Roe laws and all abortions would be completely outlawed in many states, putting an undue burden on poor and working class women.

Those of who were young pre Roe understand very clearly the consequences of illegal abortions, and the denial of access to contraception.

Though, to point out the obvious, Palin doesn't "differ" on the right to privacy. She just had no idea that Roe v. Wade involved the question of such a right. All she knew about the case was "Abortion! Hissssss..." I doubt she's ever even read it.

("Though she probably read about it in the newspaper." "Which newspaper, Johnny?" "All of them!")

So does she agree with Griswold? Nah. If she's heard of that case, she probably thinks it's about National Lampoon's Vacation.

Click my name. I still have to finish that post, but I have studied the 4th Amendment in great detail.

bearpaw1 says:

What percentage of registered voters in the US have any idea what the Griswold decision was

And bernbart points out:

Right. Very few kwow Griswald or even worse what Roe really allows.

Both good points. Of course, most people aren't running for vice president of the US, either. Its about time we started holding the highest executive candidates to a somewhat higher standard than the rest of us, don't you think? Otherwise, we can just draw lots every day to see who gets to be President and leave it at that...

Amendment No. 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construded to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Americans have always had the right to be left alone. The Constitution doesn't refer to this right, but we have it nonetheless. therefore, it doesn't matter that the Constitution also fails to mention a "right to abortion." Women have that right as a part of their right to set the course of their own lives and as part of an unenumerated right to privacy.

As for Ms. Palin, she admittedly is no lawyer, and didn't see a trap was being laid for her. But the fact our constitution is silent on abortion and privacy doesn't mean such no such rights properly exist, or could be protected by out laws.

Kind reader, forgive them!

That is exactly what I've never understood about the 'strict' constructionists. There is a lot of contemporary evidence that the intent of the constitution was to limit the powers of the Federal government and the state, not to limit the rights of the citizens.

Though that does kind of side step the question of how rights should be regulated.

McCain's behavior from way back should be left out of any discussion of this election. If he were still ANYTHING like the McCain from 2000, let alone 1987, he wouldn't be the total disaster of a possible President that he is today.

If someone's opinion changes over the course of 20 years, it's not exactly an example of "flip-flopping." That's just personal change.

And if someone is no longer aware of which opinions he holds on any given day, it's not an example of someone regurgitating talking points. That's just dementia.

this right to privacy would be a right. until america has citizen initiative, all rights are mere privileges subject to erosion or extinction by politicians.

the constitution is not the word of god. it was a flawed document on day1. an amendment establishing citizen initiative would not cause the sky to fall. what it would do, is cause administrators to look over their shoulder at the watching public, and think twice about satisfying their ego at public expense.